## In the Court of Appeals Secon d Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 1 9

- 00250

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 43rd District C ourt Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV18

- 0185

_________________________ __ No. 02

- 1 9

- 0025 1

- CV

___________________________ 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### B.B., A 

### C HILD



### I N THE 

### I NTER EST OF 

### A

. C ., A 

### C HILD2 On Appeal from the 43r d District C ourt Parker County, Texas Trial Court No. CV1 4

- 1 4 8 4

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Wallac h, JJ. Memorandum Opi nion by Justice Wallach3 MEMORANDUM OPINION After a bench trial, the trial court terminated the parent

– child relations hips between Appell ant J.B. (Mother) 1 and children A. C

. (Amy) and B.B. (Brad )

. 2 I n four issues, Mother challenges th e factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the t rial

court ’ s best

- interest finding s and the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence
suppor ting the endangerment findings and the findings that she failed to comp ly with

court

- o rdered services to o btain the children ’ s return. See Tex. Fam. Code An n. § 161.001 (b) (1)(D), ( E) , (O), (2). Because we hold that the evidence is leg ally and factually sufficient t o support the endangerment findings and that the evidence is factually sufficient to s upport the b est

- interest finding s , we affirm the trial court ’ s jud gments. BRIEF FACTS
The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department)
removed f ou r

- year

- old Amy and three

- year

- old Brad from Mother after she hit Br ad
three times in the face , bru ising his head and causing his eardrum to burs t, and a fter

1 The trial court al so ter minated the rights of the child ren ’ s re spective fathers, but only Mother appeals.

2 We use aliases to ref er t o the subject children , their famil ies , and their fos ter families

. See Tex. R. App. P . 9.8(b)(2) (requiring co urts to use aliases to refer to minors in parental

- rights t ermination cases a nd, if n ecessary to protect the minors ’ identities, to also us e al iase s to refer to their family me mbers); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 10 9.002(d).4 the doctor examining Brad ’ s injuries saw signs of probabl e sexual abuse , which Brad

att r ibuted to M other ’ s live

- in boyfriend (Boyfriend). When the children we re forensically interviewed, Amy repor te d that Boyfriend had sexually abused her as well.
Mother was indicted for injury to a child regarding Brad ’ s injuries and jailed until January 2019

. By the time of the trial, more than fifteen months after the remo val , the children ha d been in three different foster homes. Their maternal gran dmother (Gra ndmother) , with whom the children had lived much of their lives and who had ongoing vi sitation with the children during the case, had intervened in the suit, asking
to be n amed the chi ldren ’ s sole managing con servator. The trial court heard testimony from witne sses including Grandmother and her husband (Grandfather) (collective ly, Gra ndparents) , the current foster mother (Foster Mother) , the forensic interviewer, De partm ent per sonne l , the children ’ s clin ical therapist, their behavioral therapist, and their guardian ad litem (GAL)

. Mother was called as a witness, but the criminal charges against he r r emained pending at trial ; sh e invoked her Fifth
Amendment privilege against self

- incrimination whe n questioned on the stand. The Department and Amy ’ s father wanted termination of Mother ’ s parental rights with no possessory rights awarded to Gran dmother

. Grandmother, Mother , and the children ’ s attorney ad litem and GAL op posed termination and wanted the children to be placed with Gra ndmother , with Mother ha ving supervised access to
them

. In its termination order, th e trial court awarded Grandmother

“ access/visitation ” with the children f or one weekend e very other month wi t h the5 condition that she provide no access to th e terminated parents

. Gran dmother did not appeal.
DISCUSSION
In her first and seco nd issue s , Mothe r contends t hat the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to su pport the trial court ’ s findings tha t she knowing ly placed or
allowed the c h ildren to r emain in condi t i ons which endangered their ph ysical or emotional well

- being and that she engaged in conduct or knowingly placed the children with per sons who engaged in co nduct which endangered the childre n ’ s physical or emotional well

- being. S ee Tex . F am . C o de A n n. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), ( E)

. In her third issue, she contends that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court ’ s finding that s he failed to comply with the provis ions of a court order that specified the actions ne cessary for her to obtain the children ’ s return. See id. § 161.001(b)(1) (O). In her fourth issue, she challenges the trial court ’ s finding s that t ermi nation of her parent

– child relationships with Amy and Brad i s in the
children ’ s best interests

. See i d. § 161.001(b) (2).
I. Standard of Review
For a trial co u rt to terminate a parent

– child relationship, the Department must prove two elemen ts by clear and convincing evidence: 1) that the parent ’ s actions

s atis fy one ground listed in Texas Family Code Sec ti on 16 1.001(b)(1); and 2) that
termination is in the child ren ’ s best interest s . Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b); In re
E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3 d 796, 803 (Tex. 2012); In re J.L. , 163 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2005).6 Evid ence is clear and convincing if it “ will prod uc e in the mind of the trier of fac t a firm belief or conv iction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. ”
Tex. Fam. C o de Ann. § 101.007; E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d at 802.
To determine whether the evidence is l egally sufficient in parental

- te rm ination

c ases, we look at all the evidence in the light most favorable to the challenged finding s

— here, the endangerment and non compli a nc e findings

— t o determine
whether a reason able factfinder could form a firm belief or conviction that the finding
is tr ue . In re J.P.B. , 180 S.W .3d 570, 573 (Tex. 2005) ; see Tex. Fam. Code A n n. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E) , (O)

. We assume that the factfin der settled any evident iary
conflicts in favor of its finding if a reasona ble factfinder could have done so. J.P.B. , 180 S .W .3d at 573 . W e disregar d all ev idence that a rea sonable factfinder could have disbelieved, and we consid er undisputed evidence even if it is contrary to the finding.
Id. That is, we consider evidence fa vorable to the finding if a reasonable factfinder

c ould, and we disregard c ontrary evidence unless a reasonable factfinder could not.
See id. The factfind er is the sole judge of the witnesses ’ credibilit y and demeanor. In

re J.O.A. , 283 S.W.3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2009). We must perform “ an exacting revie w of the entire record ” in det ermi ning the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination o f a parent

– child
relationshi p. In re A.B. , 437 S .W.3d 498, 500 (Tex. 20 14). Nevertheless, we give du e deference to the factfinder ’ s finding s and do n ot supplant them or the ju dg ment with

our own. In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105, 108 (Tex. 2006). Here, w e review the whole7 record to decide whether a factf inder could reasonably form a firm conviction or
beli ef that the Department proved either endangerme nt ground or the noncompli ance ground and that the termination of the parent

– child relationship s would be i n the
child ren ’ s best i nterest s . Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b) (1)(D) , (E) , (O) , (2) ; In re
C.H. , 8 9 S.W.3d 17, 28 (Tex. 2002). If the factfinder r easonably could form such a firm conviction or belief, then the evi dence is factually s ufficient. C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at
18

– 19.
II. Invocation of the Privilege Against Self

- Incrimination
Mother ’ s repeated invo cations of the Fifth Amendment privile ge agai ns t self

incrimi nat ion nevertheless res ulted in evidence ag ainst her

. “ A party may invoke his
Fif th Amendment privilege against self

- incrimination in a civil proceeding if he reasonably fears that the answer so ught might incriminate him. ” In re A. B. , 372 S .W.3d 273, 275 (T ex. App.

— Fort Worth 2 012, no pet.) (citin g United States v. Balsys , 524 U.S. 66 6, 671

– 72, 118 S. Ct. 2218, 2222 (1998)). A termination trial is a
civi l proceeding for these purposes . In re A .H. , No. 02

- 17

- 00 222

- CV,
2017 WL 5180 785 , at * 4 (Tex. App.

– Fort Worth Nov. 9 , 2017, pet. denied ) (mem. op.) ; Murray v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Family & P rotective S ervs. , 294 S.W.3d 360, 367 (Te x. App.

— Austin 2009, no pet.)

. In a civil case, a factfinder may draw n egative inferences from a
p arty ’ s asse rtion o f t he privilege against self

- in crimination. See Tex. R. Evid. 513(c); Wilz v. Flournoy , 228 S.W.3d 674, 677 (Tex. 2007); see also Baxter v. Palmigiano , 425 U.S. 308, 318, 96 S. Ct. 1551, 1558 (1976) (holding Fi fth Amendment does not forbi d8 adverse i nferen ce s against parties to c ivil actions when they refuse to testi fy in response to probative evidence offered against them); Tex. Dep ’ t of Pub. Safety Officers
Ass ’ n v. Dento n , 897 S.W.2d 757, 760 (Tex. 1995); A.H. , 2017 WL 5180785 , at * 4

. II I
. Endange rment A
. Endangerment Law
A s this court has often d iscussed, Endangerment means to expose to loss or inj ury, to jeopardize. The trial court may order termination of th e parent

– child relationship i f it finds b y c lear and convincing evidence that the paren t has kn owingly placed or knowingly allowed the chil d to remain in conditions or surroundings that endang er the physical or emotional well

- being of the child. Under sub section (D), it is necessary t o examine e vid ence related to the environment of the chil d to d et ermine if the environment was the source of endangerment to the child ’ s physical or emotional wel l

- being. Conduct of a parent in the home can create an environm ent that endangers the physical and emoti ona l we ll

- being of a child.

. . . Under subsection (E), the relevant inq uiry is whether evidence exists that the endangerment of the child ’ s physical or emotional well

being was the direct result o f the parent ’ s conduct, including ac ts, omissions, and failures to act. Termin ation un der subsection (E) must be based on more tha n a single act or omission; a voluntary, deliberate, and conscious course of conduct by the parent is required. To su pport a finding of endangerment , the pare nt ’ s conduct does not necessarily have to be d irecte d at the child, and the child is not required to suffer injury. The specific danger to the child ’ s well

- being may be inferred from parental misconduct alone

. . . . As a general rule, conduct that sub je cts a child to a life of uncertai nty and insta bility
e ndangers the child ’ s physical and emotional well

- being. Additionally, a parent ’ s mental state may be considered in determining whether a child is endangered if t hat ment al state allows the parent to eng age in conduct jeopardizing the c hild ’ s physic al or em otional well

- being.

. . . [E]ven if a paren t makes dramatic9 improvements before trial, evidence of improved conduct, especially of short [] duration, does not con c lusively negate the probative value of a lon g history of .

. . irresponsi ble choices. l n re L.E .M. , No. 02

- 11

- 00505

- CV, 2012 WL 4936607, at *2

– 3 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Oct. 18, 2012, no pet.) (me m. op.) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

“ [E]v idence o f abuse of another child, coupled wi th a present or future dange r to the child in qu est ion, is relevant to determine whether a pare nt has engaged in an endangering course of conduct. ” In re E.A.W.S. , No. 02

- 06

- 00031

- CV,
2006 WL 3525367, at *10 (Te x. App.

— Fort W orth Dec. 7, 2006, pet. den ied) (mem. op.); see also In re R.S. , No. 02

- 1 5

- 0013 7

- C V, 2015 WL 5770530, at *6 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth Oct. 1, 20 15, no pet.) (mem. op.). Additionally, threats to commit suicide may contribute to a finding that the parent e ngaged in a course of conduct tha t was detrimental to a child ’ s w ell

- being. In re J. A.T

. , No. 04

- 17

- 00386

- CV,
2017 WL 4937960, at * 4 (Tex. App.

— Sa n Antonio Nov. 1, 2017, no pet.) (mem . op.);
In re R.W. , 129 S.W.3d 732, 739 (Tex. App.

— Fort W orth 200 4, pet. denied).
B . Endangerment Evidence
The t rial court heard or vi ewed the follo wing e vid ence pertinent to the issue of endangerment :

• Mother had problems with alcohol since she was a te enager .

• Mother attempted suicide the first time when she was fifteen years old.

• M other moved in with Amy ’ s father and hi s fami ly at the a ge of sixteen.10 • Amy ’ s father phy sically abused Mother , and he also used meth amphetamin e while they were together

.

• Mother used drugs with hi m .

• Mother attempted suicide again at the age of eighteen.

• Mo the r graduated from hi gh school in 2012

.

• Amy was born in t he late summer of 2013

.

• Mo ther, Amy, and Amy ’ s father stayed with Grandparents for about si x month s after Amy ’ s birth.

• After her brief absence, Amy began living with Gr and par ent s again in approximately May 2014

. Brad began living with them as well after h is February 2015 birth. Mo ther was d iagnosed with mental illness and began taking medicatio n soon t h ereafter.

• Amy and Brad stayed with Grandmother until rou ghly June 20 15.

• Gra ndmother was concerned about Mother ’ s mental health because “ she would never sta y on her meds. ”

• M other and the children lived in “ a lot ” of places be for e November 2 016 , sometim es staying “ a couple of nights on and off ” with Grandparents and ot her times staying in motel s at Grandmother ’ s expense .

• I n late November 2016, CPS r eceived a r eferral alleging c h ild abuse of Brad, who was twenty

- one months ol d, by Mother . The a llegation was that she was observed hitting him and yelling at him and that she was around “ inapp ropriate p eople ” with him in her possession.

• As par t of a safety plan wit h the Department ’ s Family Based Safety S e rvices ( FBS S) , Mother and Gra ndparents ag reed in November 2016 that the children would live with Grandparents primarily and that Mother would have the m uns upervised f or only short periods.

• Shortly the reafter during her period of possession , Mother s tay ed with the children in the home o f relatives who she knew were known to smoke m eth amphetamine , though she denie d kn owing they were actuall y doing so in the home

. Grandmother saw a meth amp h etamine11 p i pe when she ret riev ed t he children from the home , and th e relatives

“ appeared to be high

. ”

• When a CPS investiga tor visi ted a d ifferent home, a trailer home where Mother , Brad, and three

- year

- old Amy were staying with rel atives in December 2016, CPS discover ed t hat the uncle who lived in the home ha d s ignificant CPS history a nd that th e trai ler had holes in it. Whe n the CPS investigator visit ed the trailer again in early Jan uary 2017 in freezing weather , she had to inform Mother that Brad was blue from the c old ; Mother had no t noticed.

• Tha t s ame day in January 2017 , Mother to ld the CPS investigator that she had been di a gnosed with bipolar dis order and depression but was not taki n g her medication

.

• The CPS investigator testified that Mother w as d ifficult to work with and help b e cause sh e was no t stable and could not par ent her children :
“ S he could n o t control them.

. . . [S]he couldn ’ t iden tify their needs; you k now, if they needed a change of diaper, if they, you know, were in a danger ous s pot
. She constantly always relied o n othe r p eople to do that for her. ”

• Grandmother told the FBSS caseworker that Mother was n ot taking her mental

- health medications in A pril 2017

.

• In May 2017, Gran dmother told the F BSS caseworker tha t Mothe r was a good person but just need ed “ a push to get on her feet ” and ha d had unstable living situation s with the children in the past.

• I n June 2017, Mother could not exe rcise her visitation with the children because she had no where to take t hem.

• I n July 2017 , Mother reu nit ed with Boyfriend after he was rel e ased from prison. Boyfriend h ad an extensive d rug

- related criminal history

. FB SS

“ had conc erns because of hi s history, ” so a safe ty plan was entered speci fying t hat Boyfriend could not be alone wi th the children.

• The childr en lived primarily with Grandpa rents after FBSS ’ s initial involvement until Mother leased an apartm ent in November 2017 a nd FBSS agreed that the children could liv e with Boyfrie nd and her inste ad

. The provis ion that Boyfriend not be with the ch ildren unsu pervised remained in place

.12 • In January 2018, another CPS investigator visited Mother ’ s home after receiving a referral regarding physical abuse of B r a d, who was almost three years old. The si de of his face was bru ised and scratc hed , and he had a severe diaper rash

. The family , the chi ldren ’ s daycare personnel , and the Springtown police told CPS that four

- year

- old A m y had hit Brad when he tried to get in her bed

.

• Brad was then in the process of potty

- training

.

• On F eb ruary 14, 2018, Mother called Grandfa ther to report that Brad had falle n off the bed and hurt h is head. Grandfather told her to take him to the doctor; sh e took him t o the day ca re instead.

• CPS recei ved a second referral regarding physi cal abuse of Brad on F ebruary 15, 2018. He had brui sing extending from his temple and fore head area to b ehind his ear. He also had a scratch on his lef t sh oulder. Mother a nd Boyfriend claimed Brad had said th at he had fallen off h is bed ; A m y said that she had kicked him.

• CPS instructed that Gr andm other take the family to the hospital.

• The pol ice inter v

iew ed Moth er and Boyfriend separately at the ho s pital

. T he Boyfriend told police that he thought M other had c aused the injuries because he had seen her hit Brad before, and sometimes she went too far. In her interview, Mother admitted in an “ ex a sp e rat ed ” ton e that she had hit Brad in the fac e with her hand in “ three r apid

su ccessi on strikes ” b ecause he had tried to bite her.

• In addition to the surface injuries, Brad ’ s ea rdrum was ruptured.

• When the doctor examined Brad, s he r emoved his d iaper or pul l

- up. She saw a b ruise on the end of his penis w hic h she said “ wa s most likely the resu l t of a suction on the tip of his peni s , ” and she also saw “ some brui si ng in sort of a semicircle at the base of his scrotu m , which ” appeare d to be a b itemark.

• When she saw the b ruising in his private area, the doctor said, “ O h, baby, who did that ? ” and Brad answered, “ My daddy did that. ”

• Brad and A my both ref erred to B oyfriend as their father.

• Both Mother an d Bo yfriend admitted that she had been lea ving the children alo ne with hi m in v i olation of the safety plan

.13 • M other told the police that she had notice d the br uising on Brad ’ s p enis and that she had taken h im to a doctor , but CPS checked , and she ha d no t done so .

• The CPS inve stig ator who observed Mother that day te stif i ed that h er
“ reactions

. . . throughout the cour se of that day were a typical and not what [he] woul d have expe c ted from a protec tive parent. ”

• The children were fore nsicall y interviewed the next day

.

• They both referred to their e ntire private ar eas as “ but t. ”

• B rad w as barely three years old , had a speech i mpediment , and was very d istracted in the interview

. He told the i nterviewer that Amy had sla pp ed h im, the n he said that Mo ther had don e it , and then he said that Amy had done it. He also said , “ [ D ] a ddy is mean. ”

• Amy demonstrated in the interview t hat she knew the difference between the truth and a lie

.

• Amy told the intervie wer that Mo ther “ would scream at her for s om ething she didn ’ t do ” and that she d id not live with Mother because she did not want Moth er to scre am at her. Brad ’ s father later t old CPS that Mother had yelled at the children “ a lot, ” and Gr andm other t estified that Mother alarmed he r when she yelled at the children beca us e of her tone of voice and the “ very loud ” volume

.

• Aided by an an atom ical drawi ng, t he forensi c interviewer asked Brad if anyone had ever touched his penis

. The res pons e she h eard was, “ My daddy bull , ” whic h she did not interpret.

• The CPS investigator who observed the int erview testified that in context, he interpreted wha t Brad had said as indicating that Boyfriend had pulled Brad ’ s penis.

• A my to ld t he inte rviewer that Boyfriend sexually a bused her “ lots of times

. ” Am y expl ained to the interviewer that w hen Mother was a t work at Walmart, Amy would lie on a pillow, and Boy fri e n d wou ld touch her

“ butt ” with his tongue and “ lick[] her b utt like a do g. ” “ It wa s cold. ”

• A my also told the interviewer that she had reported the sexual abuse to Mother

.14 • Amy denied that Boyfriend had sexually abused Brad.

• Amy told her clinical th erap ist that M other ’ s “ live

- in man ” ye l led and thr ew things.

• Amy also t ol d her clinical therapist about “ bein g touched in places she did not like

. ” Amy told her that it happened during “ wrestling games ” she, Brad, and Boyfriend played . Then she “ shut dow n. ”

• On the nex t vi sit with the clinical therap ist , in Amy ’ s puppet play , “ the patern al figure was not respecting boundarie s and was not being nice, was not behaving in a loving manner. ” The woman was passive.

• In a play the rapy session with the clinical th erap ist, Amy chose to make out of Pla y
- Doh a ne st , bir ds , and little eggs to go in the nest. She also ma de a snake. The “ snake continued to come and get the baby eggs ” while the mother bird just sat by the side. When the therapist aske d if the mother bi r d w as going to take care of the b abie s, A my indi cated that the mother bird shou ld do so, but her play never reflected that

. The therapist found that play concerning.

• The clinical therap ist opin ed that the children chose to have their therapy sessions wit h he r unde r a bed bec ause it helped them f eel saf e.

• The children ’ s behavioral th erapist testified that the children somet im e s want ed her therapy sessions with them conducted under the bed beca use of their “ [ p ] ersonal emotions. ” They both were hav ing night mare s about the sa me m ale fig ure who scare d them. Mothe r did n ot testify but invoked her Fifth Amendment privile ge against self

incrimi nat ion to the questions asked of her by the v arious lawyers

. Given the questions, the trial judge as fac tfinder wa s ent itle d to draw the following negative
inferences f ro m Mot her ’s repeated assertions of the privilege , A.H. , 2017 WL 5180785 , at * 4 ; A. B. , 372 S.W.3d at 275 :

• O n A u gust 7, 2017, Mother reported to MHMR that she was “ ha ving a lot of anger and mood swings ” and w ould “ yell, slam doors, t hrow15 things, ” and hit B o yf riend , and she indicated that she needed to “ find a way to stop explo ding

. ”

• Mother told MHMR that she had attempted suicide twice in the pas t
.

• When Mother and the children lived with rel atives before June 2 017 , Mother knew the rel at ives smoked K2 in front of th e children.

• Mother used methamphetami ne about four months before the removal

.

• M other understood the s afety plan but violat ed it by leaving the children with Boyfriend on mul tiple oc casions.

• Mo th er lef t th e children with Boyfriend w hile she worked at Wal mar t.

• Moth er slapp ed B rad , bruisin g his face and causin g his e ardrum to burs t
.

• When she testified, Mother d id not live in an en vironment that would b e safe for the children

. Grandmother testified that Mo ther

• h ad sometimes parented well but othe r times had not ;

• had no stable home ;

• would call Grandmother a bou t how to take care of the children when th ey were sick or when to go to the do ctor;

• would get “ lost an d forgetful ” ;

• ha d n o “ follow thr ough ” regarding w hat she was supposed to do and
w hen ;

• got upset a lot ;

• ig nore d the children at times ; and

• d id not suffi cie ntly interact with them. Grandmother knew that the child ren had suffered.16 C. Analy sis
M other argues that the bruises and ruptured eardrum she inflic ted on Brad by slapp ing him are insufficient to support the termination of her parental rights , yet the
cases Mothe r relies on

— In the Interest of B.R.P. , No. 11

- 07

- 00255

- CV,
20 09 W L 1349954 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2009 , no pet. ) (mem. op.) ; Stucki v.
St ucki , 222 S

. W

. 3d 116, 123 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2006, no pe t.) ; In re L.M.M. , No. 03

- 04

- 00452

- CV, 2005 W L 2094758 , at *8 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2005 , no pet. ) (mem. op.);
and MacDonald v. MacDo na ld , 821 S

. W

. 2d 458 , 461 (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 14 th Dist. ] 1992, no writ ) (op. on reh ’ g )

— d o not invo lve a child as young as a three

- year

- old ,

“ thr ee r apid

- succ essi on strikes , ” or a ru ptured eardrum. They ar e therefore inapposite

. Mother also argues t hat nothing in Boyfrien d ’ s history would have alerted her
that the children wer e at an incr eased risk of sexual abu se from him , but she had already bee n warned tha t Boyfriend pos ed a risk to the children ; she did not have to reach that conclusion on her ow n . FBSS had required t ha t she sign saf ety plans with FBSS in which she agreed that he would not be alone with the children because FBS S
had concerns a bout his cri minal and drug h istory

. The evidence does not show when Brad was sexually abused , bu t Amy to ld the forensic intervi ew er that Boyfriend sexually abused her when Mother was at w ork

. In violating and disregarding the safety plan put in place bec ause of unsp ecified risks p osed by B o yfriend , Mother
f

ailed to protect the children fro m sexual abuse ; sh e endangered them

.17 In s um, the evidence shows that Mother exposed the children to d rug abuse,
did not m aintain her emotional stability by taking her pr es cription medications

co nsistently and did not give the children a stable , safe home to live in

. Moth er physicall y injured B ra d and had “ go [ne] too far ” in disciplin ing him before

. She failed

to take the a ctions that would h a ve protected the children fr om sexual abuse and to th e extent t hat she told the truth about having previously seen the bruising on Brad ’ s penis, did nothi ng to remove them from the danger after she saw evidence o f it

. A pply ing the appr opriate standards of review, we hold that the ev idence is legally and
fac tually suffici ent to support the trial court ’ s endangerment findings. See , e. g. , In re
G.H. , No. 02

- 17

- 00193

- CV, 2017 WL 4683925, at *8 (Tex. App

. — Fort Worth Oct. 19, 2017, no pet. ) (mem. op.); L.E.M. , 2012 WL 4936607, at *14

. W e overrule
Mother ’ s first and second issues. Bec ause a finding of only one ground alleged under
Sectio n 161.001(b)(1) is suff ic ient to support termination when accompanied by a best

- i nter est finding, In re A .V. , 113 S.W.3d 355, 362 (Tex . 2003) , we do not reach
Mother ’ s third issu e challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the noncompl iance fin ding

. See T ex. R. App. P

. 47.1.
IV
. Best Interest s of the C h ildren
In her fourt h issue, Moth er challenges th e best

- interest findings.
A. Best

- Interest Law
A lthough we generally presume that kee ping a child with a paren t is in the
child ’ s best inte rest, In re R. R. , 209 S.W.3d 112 , 116 (Tex. 2006), the best

- interest18 analysis is child

- c en tered, focusing on the chil d ’ s well

- being, safety, and develo pmen t, In re A.C. , 560 S.W.3d 624, 631 (Tex. 2018). In determining whether evidence is sufficient to sup port a best

- in terest finding, we r eview the entire record. In re E.C.R. , 402 S.W.3d 239 , 250 (T ex. 2013). Evidence probative of a child ’ s best intere st m ay be
the same evidence that is probative of a Subsection (b)(1) ground. Id. at 249; C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 28; see Te x. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b) . We also consider the
evidence in li ght of nonexcl usive factors that the factfinder may apply in dete rmining
the child ’ s best interest: (A) the [chi ld ’ s] desires . . . ; (B) the [child ’ s] emotional and physical ne e ds [,] . . . now and in the f

ut ure; (C) the emotional and physical danger to th e chil d now an d in the futu re; (D) the parental abilities of the individuals seeki ng custody; (E) the programs a vailable to assist these individuals to promote the [c hild ’ s] bes t i nterest . . . ; (F) the pl an s for the child by these individuals or by the agency
see king custody; (G) the stability of the home or proposed placement; (H) th e [parent ’ s] acts or omissions . . . indicat[ing] that the existin g parent

– ch i ld relationship is not a proper one; and (I) a ny excuse for the [parent ’ s] act s or omissions. Holley v . A dams , 544 S.W.2d 367, 371

– 72 (Tex. 197 6) (citations omitted); see E.C.R. , 402 S.W.3d at 249 (stating that in r eviewing a best

- interest find ing, “ we co n si der,19 among other evidence, the Holley factor s ” (footnote omitted)); E.N.C. , 384 S.W.3d at
807. Thes e f actor s are not exhaustive, and som e li sted factors may not apply to some

cases. C.H. , 89 S.W.3d at 27. Furth ermore, undisputed evidence o f just one f ac tor may be sufficient to support a finding t ha t termination is in the child ’ s best interest.
Id. O n t he ot her hand, the presence of sca nt e vidence relevant to each factor wil l not
suppor t such a finding. Id.
B. Evidence of the Children ’ s Be st Interes t s 1. T he C hild ren ’ s D esires The evidence was u ndisputed th at the children and Mother were bond ed

. A t Grand p arents ’ house, they wou ld grab Mother ’ s photos to hold, and Grandfat h er woul d hear them talking about her. The childr en ’ s clin ical therapist testified that both children would say they missed Mother and that Amy said she want ed to live with
Mother

. The ch ildren were also bonded with and love d their G randparents. T he GAL
testified that the children indicated to her that the y wanted to live with Grand parents. The behavior al t herapist testified that the children were al so bonded to Foster Mother, se em ed to li ke her and to lik e being w ith her , and were beginning to trust her

. Foster Mother was likewise attached to the chil dren

. 2. The Childre n ’ s Prese nt a nd Future Needs and Dangers Foster Mother de scribe d the children as open , curious, receptive, ve ry lovin g , and caring. Grandfather testified that Br ad was brig ht, sweet, a nd rambunctious and20 that he f e ll down a lot. Grand father descr ibed Amy as very smart but said that she
li ked to get her little brother in trouble.
I n May 2017, A m y ’ s primary care provider indicated that sh e needed to see a psychologis t because she had tro uble sleep ing , and Grandmother believed that Amy
had ADHD lik e Mother. Brad ’ s daycare to ld Grandmother be fore the removal that
the two

- year

- old was no t paying attention, not sitti ng when he was supposed to, not listening, and w as p laying in the bathroom.
The children ’ s behavior al therapist , who d id not meet them before the remova l , testified that the children were a handful. A m y was ve ry active, talkative, and social at
first. Sh e had so me impu ls e
- control , lying, and other soc ial

- skill issues but was eag er to learn. She w a s verba lly ag gressive but exhibited no ph ysical aggression. The behavioral therapist worked wit h Amy on social skills, list en ing in class, following
directions , e mp ath izing, and identifying her emotions. The foster parents in the secon d p lacement liked Brad more and did not s ho w Amy as much attention. After Amy was told that she and Brad w ere leaving the second placement and the ir potentia l third placement fell thro ugh , Amy began acting
out, not listening, showing more verbal ag gressio n, an d withdrawing. She struggl ed
more in school and her manipulation and lying increased. 3 The behavioral therapist

3 Soo n af ter the po tenti al third placement fell through, visits with Mother began. The c linical the rapist recognized that that change also could have impacted Amy ’ s behavi or.21 t estified that Amy felt slighted and unwanted and thought the move to Foster Mother
was her fault ; these feelings were too much for a f ive

- year

- old to dea l w ith on an

emo ti onal level

. After Amy ’ s setback, t he behavioral therap i st had to reteach her the

co ncepts of keeping her hands to herself, following directions, and bei ng respectful. Amy was g enerally health y but need ed to begin occupational therapy fo r sensory issues. She had been diagnosed with an adjustm ent disorder and also had

an xiety , as manifested by her hyperactivity and stomachaches. It was difficu lt t o keep
h er focused. Amy wa s to begin kindergarten in the fall sem este r after the trial ended. The

case worker tes tif ied that Amy was very bright and liked school . She had previo usly experienced trouble in the school cafeteria , but the caseworke r speculat e d that A my ’ s sensory issue s could have been the ro ot cause. Amy was girly, creative, bossy, and
lovable

. The behavior al therapist testified that at first, Brad was very active, talkative , and social , but he too had impuls e
- control issues and p roblems with ag gress ion and lying . In ad dition, he ha d problems with listening. T he behavio ral therapis t had seen
Brad hit others at school and at home out of anger, if he did not get his way, or if they
had one of his possessions. She worked with him on reducing h is ag gr e ssion , using his words, and improving his listening skills and ability to follow dire cti ons .22 B rad became more aggressive over time, showing both anger and rage. The
clinical ther apist ha d observed two separate incidents in which he dissociate d f ro m realit y : He

. . . wo uld get the puppets. He would throw them. He would lower

his vo ice. There was a change of look in his eye. He would become very stiff and rigid and would yell at them. He would say they were bad boys. He would say : You ’ re in t ro uble; an d, then, he wo uld stop

. . . and the

— the gentleness would return to his eyes ; and his body would become more . . . relaxed

. The first incident lasted about five minutes; th e second only about f ifteen
seconds. I n t he m onth before trial , t he b ehavio ral ther apist also observed two
different incidents of diss ociative behavior when she was alone with B r ad

. The CPS casework er testified that Brad would begin pre

- K in the fall a f ter the
trial. He was phys ic ally healthy overall, but he ha d begun stuttering , so he could need speech therapy again

. H e was receiving clinical thera py and behavioral therapy and
could also need occupational therapy again for sensory issues

. By the time of tr ia l, both children would p unch, hit, kick, and spit on each
other and the behavio ral therap ist . Brad would also ph ysically la sh out at Fost er Mother, but the evid ence conflicted on whether Amy did so

. The beha vi oral t herapist taught bot h children coping skills to help them deal with their own aggres sion. Neither child was ta king any mental

- health medication.
T he c linical therapist stated that the multiple foster placements negat ivel y affected t herapy. She was concerned about any placement change that could occur as23 a r esult of trial

. She testifie d that both children need ed stabilit y, safety, a nd secu rity , and it would be better for them to stay with Fo ster Mothe r th an t o m ove to Gr and parents ’ house just for stability ’ s sak e . The c linical therapist f urther testified
that w hile the children need ed love , support, consistency, firm bou ndari es, and understanding that their extreme b ehaviors result ed from trauma, their n e ed for

s ecu rity was key, as shown by the ir wanting to have therapy sessions under the be d.
She also opined that Foster Mother , who was eag er and amenable , need ed m ore

reso urces , help , and trauma

- based trai ning and th at the chi ldren ’ s visits w ith Grandpa rents should continue

. The behavioral therapist testified t hat Foste r Mother
was a little naïve , ha d a lot to learn about p arenting , and needed more trauma

- based

t raining b u t was eager and ha d sho wn i mprovement in manag ing the childr en ’ s behavior over the last sixty days. Foster Mother was not a confide nt parent y et , but
she c ould be come one over time with practice. The behavioral therapist agreed with
the clinica l therapis t that no placement c hange should occur at t he time of trial and also agreed that t he children ’ s connection with Grandparents need ed to remain.
Grandmother test ified that it would hurt the children if they could not have
Mother in their lives and supervise d visits with her. Gran d f at her testi fied that he believed some relationship with her going forward was in their best interests. The
GAL testified that the children were still connected to Mother , that they love d and
ask ed for her , and t hat it w ould be de tr imental to th e ir physical , mental, and
emotional well

- being if they could no lon ger have a connectio n to her

. The children ’ s24 clinical therapist could not say whether a continued relationship with Mother w ould
aid the chil dren ’ s recovery. At tr ial, M o th e r was still facing felony charges for injury to a child

. She did not
have st able housing but was stayin g with an aunt and uncle in an RV while she repaired a trailer hom e to make it suitable for habit ation. She had reportedly begun
takin g her m ental

- hea l t h medication s again. However, she had a history of not taking
her medicine consi ste n tly. Further, she di d not complete anger

- management c lasses or individual counseling before the trial despite the i ncidents giving rise to the
children ’ s remov al

. 3
. Mo ther ’ s Parental Abilities The evidence showed that Mother h ad relied on Gr andparen ts to shoulder
many o f the parenting responsibilities for her children before the remova l.
Grandmother had testified that Mo ther sometim es h ad not been a good pare nt ; had

no t given the childre n a stable home ; did not know how to parent independent ly ; coul d not complete a task; could not remember important things like taking the
children to t he doctor; often became emotional; an d did not give t he children en ough

atte ntion.
Aft er the re moval , Mother did n ot see the chi ldren for about eleven months
because sh e was in jail

. Howeve r, s he missed o nly one visit after she was released
from jail , and she called CPS before t hat missed visi t to report that she was sick

. On
th e visits, she would e ngage with the children and play with them

.25 Mot her completed the court

- ordered parenting classes , but the GAL testified
that Mothe r was unable to effectively disc ipline the children in visits. The CPS caseworker testified that

• B r ad ra n out of a vis it with her and asked for his “ mommy ” while in the visit with her

.

• Mother seem ed frustrated in visits

.

• Mo ther di d not always hug the children back in the vis its

.

• M o ther often ignored the children in visits.

• Th e children ’ s needs were more tha n Mother co uld handle.

• She h ad not taken care of their needs in the past.

• Mother ’ s continu ing t o be a parent was not in th e chi ldren ’ s best interest s . 4 . Plans for the Child ren The Department ’ s plan for the children was termi nation and adoption. Foster
Mo ther was a ttached to the children and w anted to adopt them if they becam e

av a ilable for adop tion. If she wer e to adopt the children, she would be open to
main taining the children ’ s relationship with Grandparents but would want to be in
control and discuss the matte r with Grandmother

. At trial, Mother was not s eeking to have t he children place d w ith her. Mother wanted the children pla ced with Grandpa rents and to have supervised visits with
them

. Mother also told the GAL that she would agree to no cont act between
Gr andmother an d herself if Grandmother were awarde d custody.26 5 . Mother ’ s Ex cus es fo r Her Acts or Omissions S h owing the Parent

- Child Rel ations hip s Were Improp er Mother points to her incarceration and mental ill ness and to evidence that she
had been physicall y a bused in her past as excu ses f or her mistakes as a parent and her
f

ailure to co mplete the court

- ordered s ervices. However, as the Department points out, Mother had months to complet e her services after she was released from jail. Further, gi ven the in c id ents that led to the removal, her mental illness, and her experienc e as a victi m of domestic abuse, it is telling that she did not c omplete her
anger

- management classes and individual counseling. C. Analysis G rand mother did not appeal the tri al cour t ’ s de nial of her petition in
int ervention. Although Mother did not s eek to have the children placed with her at trial, that appears to be her st ance on appeal. However, nothing in the record support ed awarding Mother the children

. Her felony cha rges , her b eh avior at the root of those charges, her history of failing to protect her child ren and put them first, he r history of not taking her mental

- health prescriptions con sistently, her lack of a suitable, stable home, and the children ’ s desp erate ne ed for sec u ri ty and stability all support the trial court ’ s findings that ter mination of the parent

– child relatio nship s is
in the children ’ s best interests. See, e.g

. , In re S.B. , No. 0 2

- 18

- 00310

- CV,
2019 WL 1388760, at *12

– 15 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Mar. 2 8, 2019, pe t
. deni ed) (mem. op.) ( upholding best

- interest finding against mother who had enda ngered her27 children because of her endanger ing conduct , her coping issues, her depend ence on others, her showing of no improvement as a parent despite CPS services , and the

c h il dren ’ s need for safety and stability , among other factors )

. We overrule Mother ’ s fourth issue.
CONC LUSION Having overruled Mother ’ s first, s econd, and fourth issues, which are dispositive, we affirm the trial court ’ s judgment s.

/s/ Mike Wallach Mike Wallac h Justice
D elivered: March 5, 2020